Econometrica-Skills — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited Econometrica-Skills (Plugin) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
Aggregate score unchanged between these scans.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
<p align="center"> <img src="assets/cover.svg" alt="Econometrica journal cover" width="220"> </p>
English | 简体中文
Agent skill stack for manuscripts targeted at Econometrica — the journal of the Econometric Society and the field's flagship for econometric theory, microeconomic theory, game theory, decision theory, and rigorous structural / empirical work.
This repository is opinionated. It is not a generic economics-writing toolbox. It is an Econometrica-specific stack built around mathematical rigor: a new method or theorem with a complete, correct proof, prized for generality and elegance, supported by identification and asymptotic theory (or axioms and existence/uniqueness), finite-sample (Monte Carlo) evidence, a terse formal house style, and a replication package under the journal's Data and Code Availability Policy.
Volatile specifics — the current editorial board, the exact submission fee, the member discount, the impact factor, and the precise wording of the Data and Code Availability Policy — change over time. This stack encodes durable norms and tells you to verify current figures on the official journal page.
Econometrica imposes constraints that differ materially from general-interest applied journals (AER / QJE / JPE) and from applied-field journals:
| Constraint | Econometrica | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Discipline | Econometric theory, micro / game / decision theory, rigorous structural / empirical | A pure off-the-shelf application is off-fit, however well executed |
| Contribution | A new method or theorem | "Policy evaluation with a known estimator" reads as the wrong venue |
| Proofs | Complete and correct; referees check them line by line | A single genuine gap can sink the paper |
| Generality | Prized over narrow application | "Works only for this example" is a rejection signal |
| Structure | Definitions → assumptions → theorems → proofs | Long full proofs live in the Online / Supplementary Appendix |
| Finite-sample evidence | Required for methods papers | Asymptotics with no Monte Carlo invites rejection |
| Regularity conditions | Stated, primitive, minimal | Hidden / high-level conditions are flagged |
| Replication | Strict Data and Code Availability Policy, verified | Monte Carlo tables must reproduce bit-for-bit |
| Process | Editorial Express; long, multi-round review | Plan for major revision, not quick acceptance |
| House style | Terse, formal, theorem-numbered | Narrative applied-paper prose reads as off-register |
Generic "scientific writing" or "economics writing" skill packs do not address these constraints.
/plugin marketplace add https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills
/plugin install econometrica-skills
/reload-pluginsgit clone https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills.git
cd awesome-journal-skills/Econometrica-Skills
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -R skills/ecta-* ~/.claude/skills/
# or
mkdir -p ~/.codex/skills && cp -R skills/ecta-* ~/.codex/skills/Use ecta-workflow to tell me which skill I should use next for my Econometrica manuscript.ecta-topic-selection
▼
ecta-literature-positioning
▼
ecta-identification
▼
ecta-theory-model
▼
ecta-robustness
▼
ecta-tables-figures
▼
ecta-writing-style (polish)
▼
ecta-replication-package
▼
ecta-referee-strategy
▼
ecta-submission
▼
ecta-rebuttalecta-workflow is the router — it tells you which skill to use next based on where you are.
| Skill | Purpose |
|---|---|
ecta-workflow | Router — decides which sub-skill to invoke next |
ecta-topic-selection | Generality / depth fit + theorem-style contribution statement |
ecta-literature-positioning | Precise formal placement against the methods / theory lineage |
ecta-identification | Identification conditions & asymptotic theory; or axioms & existence/uniqueness |
ecta-theory-model | Central theorem(s), assumptions, generality, and proof strategy |
ecta-robustness | Monte Carlo design, finite-sample performance, regularity / edge cases |
ecta-tables-figures | Self-contained simulation tables and empirical / illustrative exhibits |
ecta-writing-style | Terse formal house style; numbered assumptions and theorems |
ecta-replication-package | Code (+ data) under the Data and Code Availability Policy |
ecta-referee-strategy | Red-team proofs, generality, and finite-sample evidence; co-editor read |
ecta-submission | Editorial Express preflight + Online Appendix assembly + checklist/template |
ecta-rebuttal | Response-letter structure and revision discipline for a (major) R&R |
skills/ecta-submission/templates/manuscript_template.md — Theory/methods manuscript skeleton (assumptions, theorems, proof sketches, Online Appendix)skills/ecta-submission/templates/checklist.md — 11-section pre-submission self-checkresources/external_tools.md — Typesetting (LaTeX / amsthm), symbolic / computation (Mathematica / SymPy / Julia / MATLAB), and reproducibility toolchain| Dimension | Econometrica | General-interest applied (AER / QJE / JPE) |
|---|---|---|
| Core product | A method or theorem | An answer to an economic question |
| Proofs | Complete, refereed line by line | Often light; method off the shelf |
| Generality | Prized; "only this example" rejected | A clean identified effect can carry the paper |
| Finite-sample evidence | Required for methods papers | Robustness of an estimate, not of an estimator |
| House style | Terse, formal, theorem-numbered | More narrative / motivational |
If the contribution is the answer to an economic question with an off-the-shelf method, a general-interest applied pack is the better fit.
MIT
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.